Help understanding the Trinity!

[thinkandmull]

Ditto!

Also, this short video was helpful for me (despite its obvious intention toward humor):
youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

I read it years ago

 

[thinkandmull]

The CCC quotes the Council of Toledo that the Holy Ghost is “of the same substance and also of the same nature”. Substance would mean the one One Will and Reason in God. So Three Persons would mean consciousness.

Is consciousness a thing, a quality? I think not. Everything would be originated from the Father, no personhood thing like a brain coming from nothing

 

[thinkandmull]

CCC “the term ‘person’ or ‘hypostasis’ to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them”

I don’t think its stuff, but consciousness. We have to avoid saying “one God” merely in empty words

 

[thinkandmull]

The CCC quotes St. Gregory the Theologian as saying “the infinite co-naturality of three infinites”. That sounds heretical

 

[davidv]

The CCC quotes St. Gregory the Theologian as saying “the infinite co-naturality of three infinites”. That sounds heretical

Based on what exactly?

 

[thinkandmull]

Infinity refers to nature, not personhood

 

[davidv]

Infinity refers to nature, not personhood

How do you know?

 

[thinkandmull]

Consciousness is one. One’s abilities can be infinite, so that refers to nature. I don’t see how the CCC’s quotation is correct

 

[Nelka]

I have difficulty too as i see Jesus praying to the Father on numerous occasions! He wouldnt be praying to himself now would he!!

He was still human whilst on Earth, he didn’t walk around without worries so needed to communicate.

 

[JoeT777]

St. Gregory the Theologian’s saying is absolutely correct.

If we think of eternity and God is simultaneous and whole, nothing can be added to either and nothing can be taken away. It can be said that God is eternity as He is a singularity the whole of existence. St. Thomas Aquinas brings us to understand an “eternal which always exists, in such a way that its existence is simultaneously whole.” Boethius said, “Eternity is the simultaneously whole and perfect possession of endless life,” which according to St. Thomas agrees with this proposition of eternal. [Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium of Theology, 8 sqq.] We can conclude that the singularity that is God the essence of Eternity. Eternity can be said to be the substance of God, “eternity is the very substance of God, which has nothing changeable; there nothing is past, as if it were no longer: nothing is future, as if it existed not as yet. There is nothing there but, Is: there is not there, Was, and Will be; because what was, is now no longer: and what will be, is not as yet: but whatever is there, simply Is…Behold this great I Am!” [St. Augustine, Psalms 102, 27).

Therefore when considering St. Gregory the Theologian saying; “the infinite co-naturality of three infinites”. He is stating that what God simple substance, with neither beginning nor end, which can’t be divided and can’t be succeeded. “The One Godhead and Power, found in the Three in Unity, and comprising the Three separately, not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of Three Infinite Ones, Each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because Consubstantial; One God because of the Monarchia [monarch, a sole and absolute ruler].” [Gregory Nazianzen, Oration, 40] From which we say God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are of the same substance, eternity.

JoeT

 

[MrSnaith]

If God the Father and the Son have the same thoughts and feelings inside, how can they be said to be father and son? There is no father “feeling” in relation to a son “feeling”.!

Relationship isn’t based on feelings. Relationship is the context of person with respect to another person. The context of the Second Person to the First Person is Sonship because the Second Person is begotten by the first, and because this is so, the context of the First Person to the Second and Third is Fatherhood. They can be said to be Father and Son because of the order of their relationship, not because they have different thoughts and feelings.

Paintings show a Man with a white beard and a young Man, but aren’t they really exactly the same? So how does the relationship have any meaning?!

God the Father doesn’t have a white beard, and God the Son doesn’t look like a young man (except as Jesus). Paintings have to use certain imagery to convey an idea. The age of God the Father in such depictions isn’t meant to convey a difference in age or appearance. Rather it’s meant to convey the relationship between the two persons: Father and Son.

They are the same in being and nature, but the order of their relationship differs. This is what such depictions display.

If they share one Will and Reason together, than they have the same exact thoughts always, and yet doesn’t the Father have a thought of generation and the son that of being generated? If they do not share one Will and Reason, than in a sense it could be said there are three Gods, just as the Roman gods shared divinity.!

Actually, it is an error to say that the Three Persons “share” one Will and Intellect. Moreover, it would also be an error to say they have identical thoughts. But this must be qualified properly. They do not think and will independently. In the exercise of intellect and will, the Three Persons are always one. Not one in the sense of singularity, but one in the sense of unity.

Properly speaking, what makes up a “Person” is intellect and will. Thus, it would be meaningless to say that there are Three Persons but One Intellect and One Will in God. By saying that there are Three Persons in God, we are de facto saying there are three intellects and three wills in God.

To understand this in a clearer sense, the Three Persons are a Trinity of Love. The Son is consumed by Love of the Father and the Spirit. The Spirit is consumed by Love of the Father and the Son. And the Father is consumed by Love of the Son and the Spirit. Thus, we must discern a difference in intellect and will between the Three Persons, intellect to apprehend the Beloved, and will to love the Beloved.

Nevertheless, we cannot say they are three distinct gods. They are one in Being, despite their three-ness in Person.

The Son is said to proceed from the Reason, and the Holy God from the will, but how do we know that the distinction of reason between will and reason in God has any meaning at all since He is supremely One?!

In the order of being, intellect precedes will. You cannot be said to “choose” (or will) something unless you first have the capacity to understand the choice. The Son is said to be begotten of the Father as the Intellect/Word of the Father because self-apprehension is the first act of Person. The Spirit is said to proceed from the Father through the Son as the Will/Love of the Father for the Son (and also vice-versa) because self-giving is the second act of Person.

This relational order is true regardless of the fact that the Three Persons are supremely One.

Further, is the Personhood of the Son and the Holy Spirit from nothing?!

Simply put: No. Creation is from nothing. They were not created. God the Father is the sole origin of both the Son and the Spirit.

Aquinas says that the Holy Ghost is the “principle of love”. So, in regard to St John’s words that “God is Love”, is the Holy Ghost more love than the Father? But than the cause is less than the effect.

Again, simply put: No. In language, much is understood but not said. For example, I might say to my wife “I’m going to the grocery store,” and she understands me to mean “I’m going to the Sobey’s over on the corner of 23rd ave and 50th st.” Perhaps it’s worth bearing out what was implicit in Aquinas’ claim “the Holy Ghost is the ‘principle of love.’” That is, the fuller statement should be understood as “the Holy Ghost is the ‘principle of love’ of the Father.” For all principles derive from the Father. Thus, the Holy Ghost is neither more, nor less “Love” than either the Father or the Son.

Finally, is the Son more like the Father or more like the Holy Spirit? What does that mean?

Neither. The Son is equally alike to the Father as to the Spirit, and as equally distinct. Neither the Father nor the Spirit are begotten, nor does the Son generate or proceed. They are equally infinite in all other respects.

 

[thinkandmull]

How can you maintain that God’s intellect and will are Himself and say there are three? Than there are three gods

 

[thinkandmull]

Also,

Aquinas says “Likeness belongs in a different way to the word and to love. It belongs to the word as being the likeness of the thing understood, as the thing generated is the likeness of the generator”. Should it be either “as the one understood” or “of the one understanding”?

 

[davidv]

How can you maintain that God’s intellect and will are Himself

Are you sure this an accurate representation of what has been revealed about God?

and say there are three?
Than there are three gods

Only if one misrepresents what the Trinity is.
{edit} Add CCC reference:

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

 

[thinkandmull]

david, we are talking about Aquinas.

I think the only thing that distinguishes the Persons are consciousness and disposition towards each other (including origins)

 

[davidv]

david, we are talking about Aquinas.

The OP topic is the trinity.

I think the only thing that distinguishes the Persons are consciousness and disposition towards each other (including origins)

Why do you think this distinction applies to the Trinity?

The Catechism is quite clear that the relevant distinction is relationship.

 

[thinkandmull]

I was responding to post 51 that his position rejected Thomism and was wondering if he was okay with that.

I said “consciousness and disposition towards each other”, that is, self-awareness and relation

 

[MrSnaith]

How can you maintain that God’s intellect and will are Himself and say there are three? Than there are three gods

This misunderstands the basic concept of God as an actually infinite being. In such, you may have three-ness of persons and oneness of being, for the fact that being and person are separate categories, and person is a subcategory of being (a person has to first be, but a being does not have to first be a person).

Thus, not three gods. One God. This is because God’s essential nature is being itself, not personhood itself, though God’s personhood does have a 1-to-1 correspondence with His being, as He is actually infinite.

 

[MrSnaith]

Also,

Aquinas says “Likeness belongs in a different way to the word and to love. It belongs to the word as being the likeness of the thing understood, as the thing generated is the likeness of the generator”. Should it be either “as the one understood” or “of the one understanding”?

It should be “the thing understood,” as he states. In the act of generation, the one understanding is the Father, as He understands Himself. It is that understanding of Himself that is itself the generation of the Son. Thus, likeness in the word is of the thing understood, the Father (as the act of understanding should be understood to be complete), not of the one understanding (which suggests an incompleteness in that act, which is an error).